Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 26, 2010 11:49pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Patterns (1956)

Starring Van Heflin. Written by Rod Serling. I can't find a renewal for this.

This post was modified by Moongleam on 2010-08-27 06:49:08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Aug 27, 2010 10:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Did you look under "Kraft Television Theatre" for the live-broadcast play this film is based on? Found this:

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PAu001458711 / 1990-11-09
Title: Patterns. Producer & director: Fielder Cook.
Description: 1 videocassette.
Series: Kraft television theatre, Jan. 12, 1955
Copyright Claimant: Kraft General Foods, Inc.
Date of Creation: 1955
Authorship on Application: Kraft Foods Company, employer for hire.

Variant title: Patterns.
Other Title: Kraft television theatre
Names: Cook, Fielder
Kraft General Foods, Inc.
Kraft Foods Company

Same writer, same director, and many of the same actors are in both the TV and film versions. Don't know if this is a basis for claiming the film version, but it's the same script by the same writer and director.
Then again, 55 + 28 < 90, so it might not be a timely renewal in the first place. Hope I've helped instead of confused.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Aug 27, 2010 2:12pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

This is an original registration, not a renewal registration. It's beyond me how a teleplay aired in 1955 can be registered in 1990 unless it's for the release of the original with new material added, or has been restored. No basis for the claim is listed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Aug 27, 2010 2:13pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

according to the IMDB this movie (1956) is a remake of the Kraft Foods Theatre production. That means it is a derivative product. So if the Kraft thing had been under copyright, the film would not be PD. But the 1990 registration you posted, besides being late, is not a renewal. A renewal registration has a number beginning with "RE" not "PA" as is the case here. I don't find any record of either of these having orginally been registered in 1955 or 1956 either. So it looks PD to me too!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Aug 27, 2010 2:35pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

@Bilbarstad. You posted at the same time as me :-) The original registration could be due to the fact that a live TV production is not considered as being published. There are some case decisions you can read on this topic. But for a TV show to be published it must have been made available for syndication. If it just showed once then it might not be considered as having been published which would mean it had the same rights as a novel that you wrote but never published.

In this case the underlying story would have been considered as being published when the 1956 film was released and I'm pretty sure it would fall under the same category as the Batjac vs GoodTimes decision regarding the underlying screenplay for the film McClintock. Meaning this film is PD.

This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-08-27 21:35:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Aug 27, 2010 4:14pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you guys!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Aug 27, 2010 4:59pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Larn sumpin noo ever day heah, hyuk.
Does it matter that the original play aired TWICE, since it was so popular that it won Serling an Emmy? Not arguing, just asking.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DJason Date: Aug 27, 2010 8:36pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Not only was the original drama aired twice (which was damned rare for live dramas of the time), the underlying script was published in book form, along with a number of Rod Serling's other live drama scripts -- Requiem for a Heavyweight, Old MacDonald Had A Curve, and The Rack.

http://www.rodserling.com/PPBintro.htm

And Serling's estate was/is very much on top of renewals, so I would bet - heavily - that the underlying script is still copyright.

That said, I really, REALLY am hoping that the original broadcast is PD, as I've never seen it, and the script is AMAZING. (I once owned a copy of said book.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 28, 2010 1:17am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

" . . . I would bet - heavily - that the underlying script is still copyright."

If it is, does that mean that the 1956 movie is not public domain?


Amazon shows that several companies have released it on DVD and VHS.

These two sites are selling it as PD:
http://www.buyoutfootage.com/pages/pd_comedydrama.html
http://retrofilmvault.com/index2.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DJason Date: Aug 28, 2010 7:12am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Sorry, I should have elucidated: I do not know if the script remaining copyright would affect the PD status of the broadcast performance of it, I simply tossed out more info for those with more expertise than I have.

At a guess - and it is ONLY a guess - I would say "no", that while the script is (very likely) still under copyright, the broadcast preceded publication of the script and is a separate, though derivative, work. That copyright was likely held by Kraft Television Theater, and I doubt it was renewed, as so few live dramas were.

But, again, I'm just guessin', and I ain't no stinkin' lawyer, so don't go by me. :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Aug 29, 2010 8:10am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

I don't think it mattered if the tv show was broadcast twice. I remember reading a case about this situation and the live broadcast was not considered a "publishing" event.

re: the screenplay. If the 1956 film was released before the Rod Serling book was copyrighted then as much of the book material that was used in the film screenplay would be considered published when the film was released. So then if the film was not copyrighted then the film is PD along with the screenplay (the appropriate reference is still the Batjac vs Goodtimes case)


This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-08-29 15:10:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DJason Date: Aug 29, 2010 8:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

The book was published a year or more after the feature film was released (Serling compares the feature and the TV versions of Patterns in an essay).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Aug 28, 2010 9:17am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

What's your favorite lawyer joke? I have so few...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 29, 2010 2:12pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

The print that I obtained lacks a copyright notice. (Of course, there is a possibility that it was removed.)

Since we can't find any proof that this is under copyright, I'll try to upload it. (Thanks for all of your input.)

However, I'm wondering why Alpha Video and Mill Creek don't sell it!


This post was modified by Moongleam on 2010-08-29 21:12:47

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Sep 2, 2010 11:41am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Nice print Moongleam!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Aug 27, 2010 5:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

Looks PD to me, too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Aug 27, 2010 7:47am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

I did some in-depth research and I concur that it is definitely PD.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 27, 2010 8:03am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Patterns (1956)

I'm glad the coin came up heads this time.